Hasselblad 150mm 2.8 FE, Hasselblad 180mm CF

[ben_attb]

Hello

 

About these following two lenses:

Hasselblad 150mm 2.8 FE

Hasselblad 180mm CF 4

 

I have a Hasselblad 2000 series camera. MTF curve says the 180mm is a better performer at F4.

 

Other than the difference is speed, does anyone know if there is a noticeable difference in contrast and sharpness between these lenses?

[orsetto]

Other than the 250mm Super Achromat, the 180mm F/4 is widely considered the single best tele/portrait lens Hasselblad offered for the V system. Unlike most of the other leaf-shutter 'blad lenses, the 180 was not formulated in the stone age: it was designed from scratch by Zeiss in 1990. In use, it does have a couple "drawbacks" compared to the venerable 150mm f/4: it is very front-heavy and surprisingly awkward to handle, and the way it "draws" is felt to be more appropriate for landscape and architectural details than portraiture. So despite its higher performance, some photographers still prefer the older shorter optic.

 

The 150mm f/2.8 FE is of course faster, and the FE electronic interface makes it highly desirable to the handful of photographers who can afford the rarefied 200-series auto-exposure bodies. It feels fairly light considering the larger aperture, and handles well. Zeiss itself used to claim the 150mm f/2.8 was their "best" portrait lens in the range of 120mm-180mm, but not many photographers seem to have agreed: it wasn't a big seller. Most likely because the leaf shutter of the f/4 would have been more desirable and versatile in this focal length than the extra stop of the f/2.8.

 

If choosing between the two with no regard to the leaf shutter feature, and sharpness/contrast your primary criterion, the 180mm is the winner by a small margin. But its a bit clumsier to handhold than the 150mm f/2.8, and many find 150mm focal length more comfortable than 180mm. The f/2.8 isn't quite as perfect at the edges but is more than good. The choice comes down to personal handling and shooting preferences, focal length preference, and whether you'll ever need the leaf shutter for flash or complete compatibility with all Hasselblad bodies.

 

On a purely practical basis, the 180mm f/4 is not as exotic and sought-after now as it was a few years ago, while a nice clean FE 150mm f/2.8 can be harder to find. If you keep the 150 f/2.8 now then change your mind later and think you need the 180, it shouldn't be difficult to acquire one. If you sell off the 150 now, it might be more difficult to replace later.

Edited November 13, 2019 by orsetto

[ben_attb]

Thank you orsetto.

 

Leaf shutter doesn't matter to me as I only use focal plane cameras. My three criterias are speed, sharpness and contrast.

 

I guess my real question is, does the performance of the 180mm FE justify the extra stop of light that you loose?

 

According to the MTF curve, the 180mm CF performs better at F4 than the 150mm FE at F5.6, but I have zero experience with neither of them.

[orsetto]

My three criterias are speed, sharpness and contrast.

 

I guess my real question is, does the performance of the 180mm FE justify the extra stop of light that you loose?

 

In medium format cameras, speed almost always detracts a little bit from ultimate chart-testing performance. So you can really narrow the questions down to "how important is having f/2.8 vs f/4.0" and "how often will you seriously be shooting at f/2.8?". Both lenses are Zeiss for Hasselblad: with very rare exceptions, all these lenses were excellent or nobody would have ever been willing to pay the absurdly high prices they sold for when new.

 

The f/2.8 sacrifices a bit of perfection to gain the f/2.8 stop while still keeping a manageable small size. The speed very slightly compromises ultimate MTF, but if you aren't using it to copy flat documents like a macro lens you probably will not notice any significant flaws. It is an excellent general-purpose lens, perhaps most suited for portraits. The main design point of the 150mm f/2.8 was to exploit and promote the focal plane shutter of the to 2000F camera to allow one stop faster lenses.

 

The main design point of the 180mm f/4 was to make the best leaf-shutter lens possible in that focal length. Over the years, Hasselblad received many complaints that the 150mm was a bit too short, but the 250mm a bit too long and slow, also the standard (non-SA) 250mm was thought to be one of the weaker lenses in the system (it isn't, but can be difficult to get the best results its capable of). So Zeiss set out to make the "perfect" in between focal length while simultaneously aiming for much improved performance over the 250mm. In this they succeeded: it is an extremely sharp and contrasty optic.

 

But it can be a bit harsh for portraits, and some users are disappointed that the out-of-focus areas don't render as nicely as the 150mm or 250mm. This is a common complaint against very high performance lenses: the focused areas get a big improvement, but the boosted MTF comes at the cost of "character" and charm. If your photography hinges more on absolute sharpness vs "character", the 180mm might be the best choice.

 

On the whole, my impression is you would be happier with the 150mm f/2.8. You seem really drawn to the speed, and have zero interest in a leaf shutter. In your case, it is probably worth sacrificing the 10% better performance of the 180mm f/4 to gain the advantages you prefer in the faster 150mm.

Edited November 13, 2019 by orsetto

[ben_attb]

Thank you orsetto for the very detailed answer. I really do appreciate it. You're a mind reader: speed and character are my top priorities.

 

I've read many things about the 180mm F4 and that's it not that different from the 150 f/2.8 or f/4. However the MTF curves tell a different story, especially contrast, which makes me wonder. For me absolute sharpness is not as important but I think good contrast and flare control in a lens makes a difference because it affects the colors as well.

 

Does anybody on this forum have a different experience with both these lenses?

[tom_chow]

Hi Ben

 

I would be a careful comparing the MTF charts, the 150/2.8FE and the 180/4CF are at different F-stops. The 150/2.8FE charts are at f/2.8 and f/5.6 while the 180/4CF are at f/4 and f/8. It's true that the theoretical curves for the 180/4CF @ f/4 looks marginally better than the 150/2.8FE @ f/5.6, but I don't think it's significant (except that the 180mm is a stop faster).

 

I have the 150/2.8F, but I have never used the 180/4, so I cannot compare them for you.

[ben_attb]

tom_chow

 

Thank you clarifying. Do you know if the 180mm @ F4 performs significantly better than the 150mm FE @ F4? From the MTF curve, it looks like the 180mm performs better even at F5.6, but again, that's judging from a theoretical curve. The key word to me is contrast, not sharpness.

 

Since I don't have both lenses, I'm not able to compare them side by side.

[Ed_Ingold]

Zeiss plots MTF curves from experimental data, not theoretical like Nikon and Sony. MTF is a measure of contrast, and resolution only indirectly.

 

I have a CF150 along with a CF180. Both are sharper than the medium will distinguish, film or digital.

[tom_chow]

Zeiss plots MTF curves from experimental data, not theoretical like Nikon and Sony...

And Canon. I've read that is the case, but I've not been able to verify what they actually measure. I would assume they publish a smoothed MTF showing 4 different cycles of the best centered and aligned optical test sample of the lens, and not production samples. In either case, the MTF would represent the best you could possibly expect from a production lens.

I would assume that Sony Zeiss labelled lenses are measured too.

 

MTF is a measure of contrast, and resolution only indirectly....

MTF measures both contrast and resolution, as they are inseparably linked. Physically it was easier to fix the resolution when measuring contrast, hence the charts showing curves at fixed resolution (cycles) but you could also plot MTF curves of fixed contrast (which is more practical when evaluating optics for lithography).

[Ed_Ingold]

MTF is typically graphed as contrast v distance from the center of the image. It is redrawn for various target resolutions. It is done this way to better describe the overall performance of the lens. Contrast can be plotted directly against resolution, but only at one place in the image.

 

MTF can be calculated using the same ray-tracing software used to design and characterize the lens. While useful, this method ignores diffraction and manufacturing variations.

[tom_chow]

MTF is typically graphed as contrast v distance from the center of the image. It is redrawn for various target resolutions. It is done this way to better describe the overall performance of the lens. Contrast can be plotted directly against resolution, but only at one place in the image...

This is true, but only because of the difficulty in measuring the Transfer Function, but the actual MTF, or Modulation Transfer Function, is a function of both resolution and contrast. The charts only show a tiny part of the Transfer Function. To physically measure it, it is easier to fix the resolution (ie, use a fixed cycle chart) and measure contrast. Even then, depending on how the measurements get normalize, the contrast curve for a fixed cycle can be very different (from one manufacture to the other, or one testing lab to another). Hence Nikon and Canon's use of theoretical MTF, which are the full transfer function and not subject to measurement bias - and even then, they only plot the contrast curve for fixed cycles so they resemble the old measurements that we are use to. But you can comfortably compare one Zeiss lens to another.

 

With the full transfer function, you can plot resolution vs position for a fixed contrast - say 20% that is needed for lithography. But that is very hard to measure.

 

But I'm getting way off topic - the difference in the published MTF charts for the 180/4 and 150/2.8 are not really that different, but you can probably say the 180 is sharper, and the 150 is brighter. The larger astigmatism and lower contrast at the periphery of the 150 makes it a preferred lens for portrait photographers that like that classic look.

[Ed_Ingold]

MTF, or transfer function is synonymous with contrast. MTF is a function of spatial frequency and coordinates within the field of view. You can designate any two variables as independent, but the third is determined by that choice. I suppose you could split those values between sagittal and tangential measurements, but that's a binomial choice, not a variable.

[orsetto]

We're getting a little lost in the weeds of test spec minutiae. Its relevant up to a point, but with the Zeiss 'blad lenses the differences in actual use are minor at worst: these aren't Samyangs (or even current Nikkor AFS) where wide swings in production variation and model updates contribute toward conflicting test data and user reports.

 

ben_attb, what exactly are you planning to do with the lens you decide on? General purpose photography, or a concentration on one particular subject like mostly portraits or mostly landscape? What is the significance of f/2.8 in your work: do you absolutely need it for low light exposure and/or portrait bokeh? These are more important factors than the minor test MTF and contrast differences: i.e., if you frequently need f/2.8 to shoot in restaurants, the "better contrast" of the 180mm f/4 is essentially meaningless, since it doesn't open wider than f/4.

 

It really does come down to a question of what is your greatest need: f/2.8 aperture, or maximum possible contrast and sharpness at f/4 - f/5.6 - f/8? The 180mm wins (slightly) on contrast/resolution, esp for landscape or art reproduction, but the f/2.8 is no slouch and has greater overall versatility. If shooting with a digital back for exacting technical work, the 180mm might show more obvious gains, but for the film use more common with a 2000 series focal plane body, you aren't likely to notice significant flaws in either lens.

 

Sorry to keep repeating, but your intentions are more important than measured performance: even with high-res Phase One digital backs that cost upwards of $40K, many photographers still love employing the "flaws" of the super-fast 110mm f/2.0 Planar (which in some respects is no better than a Coke bottle wide open). Its all relative, esp now that most 'blad lenses cost $800 used vs the $2995 they went for in 1999 (much easier to try or own both today).

 

One of the few carefully nuanced reviews of the 180mm I've seen can be found at the link below- it is compared with the 150mm f/4 instead of your f/2.8, but most of the points (pro and con) still apply:

 

Oleg Novikov Photography » Hasselblad Sonnar CFi 4/150 vs. Sonnar CFE 4/180 - making the choice

Edited November 23, 2019 by orsetto

[Ed_Ingold]

The 150 focuses closer than the 180, so that you can get a head shot with the 150 without cropping, and barely head-and-shoulders with the 180. That is one reason a 150 is the go-to lens for portraits. With either lens, the backdrop is out of focus at f/8, so the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is largely moot. Putting it another way, DOF for the same field of view is inversely proportional to the format size. DOF at f/2.8 in medium format is equivalent to f/1.4 with a 35 mm camera.

 

Rating a medium format lens for available light shooting is like recommending a hair shirt for underwear - a lesson in humility. Medium format is ideal for situations demanding high image quality (e.g., low grain) where the lighting is ample and controlled, namely product shots, portraits and landscapes. I've used my Hasselblad for grip-and-grab shots when nothing else was available. Personally, I'd take the hair shirt and a Nikon (or Sony) any day.

 

Someone will say the 180 is too sharp for portraits. I suspect the same people have never used Photoshop (or Portrait Professional), much less a layer of gauze in the filter holder of an enlarger. There are many ways to mitigate sharpness, but durn few to improve it in a landscape.

[q.g._de_bakker]

The minimum field of view of the 180 mm lens, unaided, is 36 cm, at a focusing distance of 152 cm (working distance 130 cm).

The minimum field of view of the F/FE 150 mm lens, unaided, is 40 cm, at a focusing distance of 140 cm (working distance 123 cm).

So no, though the F/FE 150 mm does focus a little bit closer, you do get tighter framing using the 180 mm lens.

 

The C/CF etc. 150 mm has a minimum field of view of 39 cm, at a focusing distance of 137 cm (working distance 119 cm).

Also no tighter framing than with the 180 mm lens.

Edited November 24, 2019 by q.g._de_bakker

[tom_chow]

...

Q.G., nice to see you are still around and posting, I think I've missed you sensibility around here (of course that might get me into trouble!).

 

It's interesting that the datasheets for both 150mm's list the MFD as 1.4m. But they list the the FoV as 40cm for the CF f/4 and 39cm for the F f/2.8. Did you get that backwards, or did you measure them - both focus a little closer than the 1.4m mark, and you've stated that the C/CF focuses closer (137cm) than the F/FE (140cm), so the FoV's should be similarly scaled? And the spec sheet lists the CF180mm f/4's FoV as 37cn instead of 36cm.

 

I have/use the CF150mm f/4 and the F150mm f/2.8, and have in the past owned and used the C150 (non T*). As much as I like the f/2.8, I think the best pictures I've shot came from the C/CF150mm. Of course it could just be me and coincident. I've never owned or used the 180mm, so I can't comment or compare that lens.

[ben_attb]

I really appreciate all your comments. I'm going to buy both lenses and put them to the test at f/4.

[orsetto]

ben_attb, I somehow misread your initial post, and just now realized you don't yet own either lens. Most of my replies assumed you already owned the 150mm f/2.8, and were considering adding or trading for the 180mm f/4.

 

Since you don't yet own either lens, I suggest you shop carefully and don't buy more features than you really need. The FE version of the 150mm f/2.8 is often much more expensive because it has the electronic meter contacts for the oddball, scarce 200 series cameras. If you don't now own or have any intention of ever buying a bizarre 200 series body, don't waste money for an FE lens when a plain F is the same at a much lower price. Early (1970s) F examples have two screws holding the removable focus scale band in place, later (1980s-1990) versions have a painted on focus scale like the FE. All three versions appear to have the same optical formula.

 

Ditto the 180mm lens: it came in CF, CFi and CFe versions. The optics are the same in all three, and all three are fairly new in the Hasslblad scheme of things (so age shouldn't be a significant factor). The CF is the best bargain, the CFi is nicer to operate, and the CFe (like the FE above) has electric contacts for the exotic 200 series bodies. I've never seen a CFe, they're somewhat scarce and only really necessary for the 200 bodies. Choosing between the CF and CFi is a coin toss: buy whichever is available in the best condition at a good price (or that matches your other lenses: if you have CFi, get a CFi, etc).

 

Of course, if you stumble across a great bargain in a FE or CFe lens, you should certainly grab it. A couple years ago I snagged a nice 80mm f/2.8 CFe Planar for a third the going rate of nearly $1000. A studio was liquidating its assets on eBay over a holiday weekend, and my low bid won it: my best 'blad deal ever (aside from the 120 Makro I scored with a dead EL body for almost nothing).

Edited November 28, 2019 by orsetto